Search:

Type: Posts; User: crossref; Keyword(s):

Page 1 of 20 1 2 3 4

Search: Search took 0.27 seconds.

  1. [Law] Re: When and why the intentional knock-on rule was added to the rugby laws?

    I think WR would say : tackle lower.
  2. [Law] Re: When and why the intentional knock-on rule was added to the rugby laws?

    ie ball carriers are throwing the ball hoping to hit a tackler's arm, and gain a PK/YC ?

    it's an interesting theory, I wouldn't rule it out completely, but in general surely that would not be a...
  3. Replies
    14
    Views
    487

    [Law] Re: 20.10 behind the kicker at a PK

    exactly so - offside players in general play do NOT have to get back behind the kicker (merely not advance, and not interfere with play)

    So at a PK where's the Law that says players must get back...
  4. Replies
    14
    Views
    487

    [Law] Re: 20.10 behind the kicker at a PK

    so where's the Law saying they are required to "get back and remain" ?

    There isn't one. The Law just says remain, which (obviously) includes get back and remain.

    kinda my point really. If they...
  5. Thread: Penalty Try

    by crossref
    Replies
    43
    Views
    1,448

    Re: Penalty Try

    i would certainly agree that it's not rugby's biggest issue :)

    has anyone said it was?

    I don't think the forum is restricted to discussing only rugby's biggest issue?
  6. Thread: Penalty Try

    by crossref
    Replies
    43
    Views
    1,448

    Re: Penalty Try

    EXACTLY MY POINT

    from a game management point of view, when awarding a PT, very often you really would be best off remaining close to the action, to manage any fall out.

    however - to provide a...
  7. Thread: Penalty Try

    by crossref
    Replies
    43
    Views
    1,448

    Re: Penalty Try

    Yes, seems we all agree that it's NOT a good idea to run off under the posts, and so many of us don't do it.

    hence my OP: the Law should be change to remove the requirement to run off under the...
  8. Thread: Penalty Try

    by crossref
    Replies
    43
    Views
    1,448

    Re: Penalty Try

    shrug - my question was prompted by watching Luke Pearce on TV running away from the action ... in order to award a PT...

    I think that's quite normal, I'll watch out for it going forward

    But...
  9. Replies
    9
    Views
    332

    Re: Hand-off heights

    tbf the current protocols for dealing with head contact aren't really in the Laws either, they are protocols.
    But yes, it seems to me the inconsistency can't last.

    That situation where one...
  10. Replies
    9
    Views
    332

    Re: Hand-off heights

    I think that's about right
    It's an obvious inconsistency with current practice , it can't be long before they outlaw hand offs to the head.
  11. Thread: Penalty Try

    by crossref
    Replies
    43
    Views
    1,448

    Re: Penalty Try

    Because you don't go under the the posts ? Or because you don't think it matters that you have to go under the posts ?
  12. Thread: Penalty Try

    by crossref
    Replies
    43
    Views
    1,448

    Penalty Try

    No that there is no longer a conversion, we should get rid of the need to run over to the posts to award a PT.

    I don't like the way the ref has to run away at what can sometimes be rather a...
  13. Replies
    14
    Views
    487

    [Law] Re: 20.10 behind the kicker at a PK

    Well, not really as players who are in front of a PK are actually required to get back behind (unless it's taken quickly).
  14. Replies
    14
    Views
    487

    [Law] 20.10 behind the kicker at a PK

    Law 20.10 is odd one

    20.10 Other than the placer at a place-kick, the kickerís team must remain behind the ball until it has been kicked.

    .. because it outlaws most quick taps (where it's...
  15. Replies
    46
    Views
    1,343

    [Law] Re: England v France - 24/4/2921

    + when you consider that the new scrum sanction is not listed in Law 19.1 (as it should be) and you really are drawn to the conclusion that it was added as a mistake.

    no doubt be someone who...
  16. Replies
    46
    Views
    1,343

    [Law] Re: England v France - 24/4/2921

    which is beautiful, because 7.3e itself was new in 2018 --- so in 2017 they could have played advantage if they wanted to.

    So perhaps the referee is a 2017 fundamentalist, still doggedly reffing...
  17. Replies
    46
    Views
    1,343

    [Law] Re: England v France - 24/4/2921

    yes, well, that about sums up your thinking ! Never any attnetion paid to the actual changes in book, just hanging on to that 'nothing changed' mantra ...


    but I do agree nothing to be gained by...
  18. Replies
    46
    Views
    1,343

    [Law] Re: England v France - 24/4/2921

    of course it's not sinister.

    it just means that WR's left hand didn't know what WR's right hand was doing. We never heard the authors saying nothing had changed (the reverse- Tappe Henning said...
  19. Replies
    46
    Views
    1,343

    [Law] Re: England v France - 24/4/2921

    (plus every time they settled an ambiguity "it meant X" then all the people who had previously understood the Law Book to mean Y saw that as a change.
    Of course if you thought all along that it...
  20. Replies
    46
    Views
    1,343

    [Law] Re: England v France - 24/4/2921

    I have never said anyone lied ! But there was lots of confusion

    Indeed one of the authors was quoted in an interview as saying that - while the brief was to make no changes - they did actually...
  21. Replies
    46
    Views
    1,343

    [Law] Re: England v France - 24/4/2921

    I think that's exactly why they changed the Law to be take it again
    Shame it's gone back to being a scrum again
  22. Replies
    46
    Views
    1,343

    [Law] Re: England v France - 24/4/2921

    I could help with that - I constructed a useful table that does exactly that comparison, highlighting the differences :)

    and - gosh - what hostility and abuse that I endured for constructing...
  23. Replies
    46
    Views
    1,343

    [Law] Re: England v France - 24/4/2921

    it's been a pattern ever since 2017 - each year since 2018 (and sometimes mid year) changes to the text have been smuggled in, unannounced.

    EVERY change should be highlighted regardless of...
  24. Replies
    46
    Views
    1,343

    [Law] Re: England v France - 24/4/2921

    In the old days they always highlighted the changes from year to year. Wish they would do that now.

    I don't think the scrum sanction was removed accidentally in 2017, as it was removed so...
  25. Replies
    16
    Views
    527

    [Law] Re: France v England - 30/4/2021

    :-) :-)
Results 1 to 25 of 500
Page 1 of 20 1 2 3 4